|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
[ QUOTE ]
Ted Rall is one of the most passionate, articulate writers we have in America today. He understands democracy and exposes those who wish to slowly repeal it. [/ QUOTE ] Good to see you've cemented yourself as a troll. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ted Rall is one of the most passionate, articulate writers we have in America today. He understands democracy and exposes those who wish to slowly repeal it. [/ QUOTE ] Good to see you've cemented yourself as a troll. [/ QUOTE ] Having an opinion makes one a troll? I assume what you really mean to say is: having an opinion I don't like = troll. Correct? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
[ QUOTE ]
Having an opinion makes one a troll? I assume what you really mean to say is: having an opinion I don't like = troll. Correct? [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever read Ted Rall? Btw, his trollishness has been established over a while now. This is just the icing on the trollish cake. If he had replaced "Ted Rall" with "Michael Savage", I would have come to the same conclusion. Both are nutjobs |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Having an opinion makes one a troll? I assume what you really mean to say is: having an opinion I don't like = troll. Correct? [/ QUOTE ] Have you ever read Ted Rall? Btw, his trollishness has been established over a while now. This is just the icing on the trollish cake. If he had replaced "Ted Rall" with "Michael Savage", I would have come to the same conclusion. Both are nutjobs [/ QUOTE ] 1) Yes, I've read Ted Rall. 2) Merely citing/approving/agreeing with nutjobs doesn't make you a troll; it makes you a nutjob, or merely someone who likes and agrees with nutjobs. Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'. I think you use it to mean 'someone I don't agree with.' |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'. [/ QUOTE ] No, that's my definition as well. So think. Why did he start this thread about Ted Rall if not to stir the shitpot? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Maybe we just have different definitions of what a troll is. I think of it as meaning something along the lines of 'someone who posts on a message board with the explicit and obvious purpose of starting a flame war'. [/ QUOTE ] No, that's my definition as well. So think. Why did he start this thread about Ted Rall if not to stir the shitpot? [/ QUOTE ] There's a difference between stirring the pot and trying to start a flame war. I'd guess half of the posts on the Politics forum are typically some form of schadenfreude meant to stir the shitpot, as you say. But I assume he started a thread about Ted Rall hoping to start a discussion about Ted Rall and the content of Ted Rall's writing. I get what you're saying, but in many ways this board is one big shitpot that's constantly stirred. I don't think that necessarily means stirring the shitpot is equivalent to intentionally starting a flame war -- let's make a distinction between stirring the shitpot (trying to start discussion that might include barbs thrown back and forth -- that's what politics and jockeying for power is all about, right?) versus a flame war (a post meant merely to upset people). I think we ought to be very careful about what we label as 'flaming' and 'trolling' in the Politics forum; it's much easier to spot in the poker forums (a poster whose only goal is to criticize, name-call, etc. and not contribute to the poker discussion) than it is in the Politics forum -- as a legitimate component of genuine political discouse is strong criticism, vivid dialouge and imagery, etc. I don't have much sympathy for those who come to the Politics forum and find all the debating and arguing in poor taste -- anyone who feels this way has come to the wrong place, IMO. If you see no distinction between the two, that's fine -- if that's the case, however, then there probably isn't anyone here who isn't a troll, because if merely saying you agree, respect, or like Ted Rall constitutes the intentional stirring of the shitpot, which is tantamount to starting a flame war, which makes the poster in question a troll - then we're all guilty of it or something similar, except for those too cowardly or ignorant to have strong opinions. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
So, to answer the OP, I'd like to know what the title of this thread and the content of the OP have to do with each other?
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Is GWB exploiting a state of perpetual war to stifle internal diss
Its a quote (that is true) from the link I posted.
|
|
|